AMD Granted Motion in Intel Suit, Third Parties Will Be Questioned

Advanced Micro Devices said a U.S. court has provided its motion to have third parties, particularly computer makers mentioned in AMD’s litigation against its larger rival, to preserve documents or any other relevant documents in antitrust suit against Intel Corp.

The motion sought a judicial order permitting it to move forward to preserve relevant evidence possessed by specified third parties, including large computer makers. Its lawyers will now engage in discussions with about 30 third parties, according to a Reuters report. In a statement, Advanced Micro Devices reportedly indicated its motion requesting document preservation was granted by the U.S. District Court of Delaware shortly after it was filed on July 1, 2005.

The antitrust complaint against Intel Corporation was filed under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, and the California Business and Professions Code. The 48-page complaint explains in detail how Intel has unlawfully maintained its monopoly in the x86 microprocessor market by engaging in worldwide coercion of customers from dealing with AMD. It identifies 38 companies that have been victims of coercion by Intel – including large scale computer-makers, small system-builders, wholesale distributors, and retailers, through seven types of illegality across three continents, AMD claims.

AMD said Intel’s illegal and unfair actions include the following:

Intel has forced major customers into exclusive or near-exclusive deals;

Intel has conditioned rebates, allowances and market development funding on customers’ agreement to severely limit or forego entirely purchases from AMD;

Intel has established a system of discriminatory, retroactive, first-dollar rebates triggered by purchases at such high levels as to have the practical and intended effect of denying customers the freedom to purchase any significant volume of processors from AMD;

Intel has established and enforced quotas among key retailers effectively requiring them to stock overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, Intel-powered computers, thereby artificially limiting consumer choice;

It has forced PC makers and technology partners to boycott AMD product launches and promotions;

Intel has abused its market power by forcing on the industry technical standards and products which have as their central purpose the handicapping of AMD in the marketplace.

AMD demands the court to find Intel guilty of all charges and compensate AMD its losses as well as profits caused by Intel’s actions.